On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 13:40 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: >> >> > > Can you hash the format string to generate the id? 6 hex digits should >> >> > > be enough, and your tool can check for clashes. As it's bad form to have >> >> > > identical strings for different semantics anyway, this seems to make >> >> > > sense. >> >> > Ok, so a specialized version of printk will do the work to calculate >> > the hash. Only, what will we do if there ever is a conflict? The message >> > tag has to be unique. The shorter the hash is, the more likely a >> > collision gets. Don't know if 6 hash digits is enough to just ignore the >> > problem. >> >> And if you ever need to change the text that is in the format string? >> The hash changes. That seems exactly counter to your goal... > > The only problem here is trivial change like typos. Then the hash > changes although the message is semantically still the same. If the > message really changes, its id should change as well. That's what I meant. Never underestimate the urge to fix the printk(), because "hey, it's JUST A PRINTK". That's one of my motivations - to make it no longer just a printk. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
